Tell The Truth: This Is A Woman's World...

August 10, 2011

In a week where the "big news" has been about America's Financial Meltdown, I said to my mother that the real story, to me anyway, that was being overlooked was London. That ended the next day, when violence in London exploded into a much larger problem of riots and looting than anyone expected. It only took a day for worrying about the stock market to seem quaint.

To my "connect the dots" mind, the story of the London riots - which still seem somewhat wildly surreal to me - will turn out, I suspect, to be the endgame of the story about phone hacking... which in turn, as we are seeing, is less a story about the press and more a story about London's Metropolitan Police Force.

Stay with me on this for a minute: the real scandal in the phone hacking story - which, one might recall, has led to the resignations of its top leaders just as rioting broke out - is the complicity of police forces in both the hacking and the failure to stop it or investigate it fully. That story, really, is the tip of an iceberg which the rioting, and the failure to police that effectively as well, becomes just another example of how flawed London's policing really is.

It's easy to fall into a familiar left/right argument about the riots - are we worried about root causes, or lawlessness? - but our American biases are really beside the point; the British have a problem that is both about root causes (poverty, injustice, and a sense of powerlessness) and violence and law breaking on a severe scale that a developed society simply cannot tolerate.

One of the things that's rarely mentioned when discussing the English (and, in this case, really them and really not us) is just how much of British society is still a deeply entrenched system of class distinctions that are quietly accepted and at times brutally enforced. We Americans are only barely exposed to the issues of "Council Housing", the bifurcated system of education which puts the elites into those tony boarding schools we hear so much about, but shunts the poor and working classes into schools of lesser quality. The list of ills for the poor and working classes in London goes on and on... we quaintly talk of "Dickensian", but we forget that what Charles Dickens described in the interactions of British people between classes is that some of those perceptions never really changed. The upper class is still separated and superior, and still insulated from the suffering of the masses, suffering that, when it comes to the police, is done, in no small part, to perpetuate the insulation.

London's riots, in fact, are now news - much the way the Rodney King riots in LA became national news - mostly because it's clear, at this late moment, that no one is particularly safe. Your education, wealth, class, and privilege will not protect you when lawlessness reigns. Therefore, some will conclude... we can't have lawlessness.

We can't have lawlessness. And we cannot condone violence. But while Thoughtful People wring their hands over quelling the riots, bringing some sense of order (and justice) back into play... it would be a worthwhile moment if London's elites also took a hard look at the role of the class divisions in their society as a catalyst for revolt. Improving housing, education, opportunities for work and advancement will be crucial to improving a society bacl to a place where violence isn't just condemned, but where it also seems unnecessary.

In the midst of panic, it's easy to condemn the violence, the looters, the breakdown of civility and order. But the point is, really, that these riots are not, however it seems from a distance, events that came out of the blue. It's why we expect more of police than simply beating back protesters and throwing people in jail. Britain has a choice - are the police merely the enforcers of an established social order, or are they an instrument of helping to establish fairness and a sense of justice for all? Order and a sense of calm, however uneasy, will eventually be restored... but until when? Until the next riot? Or until people believe that, whatever class they come from, all of them have a chance for a decent, positive quality of life?

July 17, 2011

I promised myself not to write anything about the News of the World "phone hacking" scandal until Rebekah Brooks, the CEO of News International, resigned. I did that because, ultimately, any piece before she did would amount to " Rebekah Brooks will have to go".

I've been following the phone hacking story for months, at least; I kind of remember being interested back when Sienna Miller first filed suit in 2007, claiming her phones had been hacked, messages deleted, and details related to the messages showed up in the News of the World. But since then, watching this story unfold, it's fascinating and truly compelling to see how one minor incident has snowballed into the calamity that may take down Rupert Murdoch's empire, his livelihood, and possibly his career.

But if you're lloking for me to join in vocal outrage over the phone hacking details... well, you should know I don't do outrage a lot. Also that I tend not to take the familiar, obvious line; in this case, I'm not especially sympathetic to cries that "reasonable expectations of privacy" are really the story of the phone hacking scandal. Indeed, the unfolding of the phone stories has reinforced a faith I have that the belief in a "right to privacy" is actually kind of a vague all purpose shield that tends to wilt under close scrutiny.

No, what's really unfolding out of the revelations of phone hacking is something much more fundamental, especially for the British, whose culture, after all, is actually quite different from Americans. What's fundamentally unraveling in England, and may drift over to American shores, is a fundamental reassessment of just what constitutes news and what we deserve to know. In some ways, yes, that's the flip side of "privacy", but it's really the more relevant, more controllable question. Just how freely should the press rummage about in people's lives, and what amounts to going too far?

June 22, 2011

Just to stick with the frustrations of the upcoming election cycle (hey, at least I got something), one reason I remain interested in watching the Repubican crack-up is because Republicans - still - don't seem to know that they're in the midst of one.

Never mind, for a moment, that the GOP is bereft of ideas on so many big issues - healthcare, economic problems, a general sense of how to govern; to me, if you want a good indication, just now, of how Republicans are struggling, it's the curious debate on foreign policy that's already begun to derail their primary contests.

So far, the Republicans have had more or less two full-on "debates" with Presidential contenders. "Debate" in this context meaning some cable news network sends out a signature star (Bret Baier on Fox managing the one in South Carolina, John King doing similar duties in New Hampshire for CNN), vague questions are asked, and bumper sticker generalities offered in return. So far, mostly, we've learned that Tim Pawlenty is bad at bu,per sticker generalities... but then, we knew that.

The debates haven't provided much in the way of interesting output, especially with Washington's political pundit class, who are vaguely part of the Democratic Establishment. But then, we Democrats are not, really, the intended audience. The debates are, after all,m meant to provide insights into the GOP primary process, and that means the real audience that matters is Republican. And on the right, the debates have a somewhat different meaning.

That doesn't mean Republican pundits are much more enthused than their lefty counterparts - the ennui is breathtaking - but they do hear things the rest of us don't. And that, I think, is why foreign policy suddenly became the news out of the debates that's really throwing people off course.

This all started, more or less, because Mitt Romney pointed out, in offering general opposition to the war in Afghanistan, that Americans can't really fight another nation's war of independence. If the Afghan people want the Taliban gone, he said, that's their fight, not ours.

To many of us, that may seem obvious, if a little remarkable from a Republican. But on the right, it's revealing a deep rift that may highlight why Republicans can't get it together for 2012.

One thing to note is, among Republican Presidential hopefuls, Romney is not alone. Over the two debates, when they're not reminding their right wing audiences about how awful Barack Obama is, there's been a remarkable willingness to question the army-first, warlike propensities of the conservative wing. Getting out of Afghanistan, even out of Iraq, reducing American presence in overseas conflicts are points made by a number of contendes, from Ron Paul to Herman Cain to Romney and Pawlenty as well.

The blowback after the recent debate was surprisingly strong as well - over the weekend, the lions of the GOP SEnate roared back and insisted that America needed to continue to support military presence on a variety of fronts. John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Liz Cheney and others all cited Roney specifically and called his characterization of Afghanistan incorrect. That's pretty revealing of some pretty deep internal tensions.

The media has labeled a lot of this "war weariness" with plenty of voices to point out that Afghanistan has lasted longer than Vietnam with less to show for it, which then likens are presence there to the Russian foray into Afghanistan in the seventies and eighties. I don't think either metaphor exactly holds, and I think "war weariness" is a mirage. America's been "war weary" since pretty much its founding. That hasn't stopped us from a lot of pointless killing and bombing of stuff.

What the Republican candidates are noting, really, is that it's fashionable, right now, to appeal to the national desire to see these wars end. That's a position that appeals to both the rural communities of Republicans where many soldiers come from, and the urban liberals who've opposed military intervention on principle all along. It's a rejection of foreign policy notions on the right that date back, at least, to Henry Kissinger. And, as much as anything happening in politics, it's a signal that long-established divisions between "left" and right" are breaking down.

This desire to cater to a national preference against war would be fine, except that as a foreign policy, it's incoherent. Agreeing to the ideas about drawing down troops in Afghanistan is approving of the Obama Administration, though the candidates insist that Obama's foreign policy is lousy, too. The opposition to NATO-led intervention in Libya - which is also a hallmark of the Presidential group - leaves few, if any, options for how American can be a force in the world.

Republicans are in this place, of course, because the George W. Bush presidency was such a failure on so many levels. Bush's "freedom agenda" - an attempt to codify our policy of "good intentions" as doctrine - suggested a policy having little to do with our actual national interests. Claiming that we encourage "freedom" and "Democracy" everywhere is at odds with what we actually do and what we actually want in our foreign allies. It's why, for more than 30 years, Presidents of both parties quietly looked the other way as Hosni Mubarak ruled Egypt with an iron fist. It's why, for God's sake, George W. Bush tried to sell the notion that Vladimir Putin was somehow a good guy. Democracy, even as we practice it, is messy. Oligarchs and Despots may be problematic, but it does make negotiations a lot easier.

The failure of the Bush Administration to create and promote a sensible idea of a Republican approach to foreign policy - one that involved something other than the armed forces - has left Republicans with few real ideas on how to approach a changing world no longer interested in the idea of the US as the world's cop. Virtually all that's left - a Cold War hangover that makes China the last enemy - may have some visceral appeal to xenophobic conservatives, but offers no real answer to the challenges we face as a nation doing business and relating to other wealthy powerful players.

As with so much else about this election cycle, the real shame her is that the President and the Democratic Establishment may well succeed in reelecting President Obama with little real challenge to the status quo, when a robust debate is needed with some real competition among ideas. That Republicans will find themselves voicing discontent with the Afghanistan War, agitating more vocally than the left to end international interventions is both heartening and bewildering. Welcome to the quest to ask "War... what is it good for?" The real shame, though, will be watching them lose because of it.

May 05, 2011

I don't think it's at all surprising that conservatives have settled into arguing that "we were right about waterboarding" as a way to deflect having to acknowledge that the President's success in finding and killing Osama Bin Laden has wrecked their "we're the only ones who can fight terrorism" chest-thumping.

It's probably equally unsurprising that progressives have responded yet again with their two favorite responses: "you people are monsters" and "waterboarding had nothing to do with it."

The old and familiar contours of the argument don't mean much to me (even as I come down, firmly, with the progressives on this one: you people really are monsters for wanting to torture people, and waterboarding yielded precisely nothing useful); this debate won't end anytime soon, which I'll get to in a minute. What's been kind of interesting to me are the wrinkles on both sides among some of the key players.

One wrinkle is that some of the Bush players are hedging on just whether "harsh" interrogations actually produced information that led to identifying Bin Laden's compound. While trying to claim credit for working hard to locate him, Rumsfeld, Rove and others were surprisingly cautious in suggesting that things like waterboarding actually led to usable intelligence.

Just as curious, the White House seems reluctant to simply take the idea off the table. Simply saying "no information from 'harsh' interrogations led to Bin Laden" would seem like an easy call, even if it wasn't entirely true. Instead the White HOuse and National Security teams have hedged by saying "no one piece of information" was that crucial. That's hard to dispute... but leaves the door open to suggest that continuing to torture people is somehow okay, if it yields useful intelligence.

As I said, it's not surprising that Republicans want, even now, to make the use of waterboarding and other techniques perfectly reasonable responses to terrorists and their threats. As well, they've continued a thread of trying to make waterboarding and such "not torture" by dressing it up as "harsh" and similar, somehow excusable terms. We don't torture people... we're just looking for answers. And if what we do works... how can it be torture? Or wrong?

More distressing, as the story of the Bin Laden compound raid and assasination unfolds, is the sense that most Americans, including many lefties (and a lot of prominent liberals), are planning to ask no questions about the debatable "right" we had to go into Pakistan in the first place. Pakistan has protested, for years now, about American drone attacks on terrorist and Taliban leaders, and has complained even louder about this foray onto their soverign turf, with no warning and no permission. Further, nothing that continues to drip out about the "fire fight" that night suggests anything like a mission to find Osama Bin Laden and actually "bring him to justice" - that is, actually capture him for the prupose of a trial. Instead, we are learning that the murder of an unarmed man, awoken in the middle of the night, amounts to "bringing someone to justice."

The debates about torture won't go away because, with this raid and this killing, Democrats have, in their way, gone all in to prove themselves as tough as Republicans when it comes to fighting terrorism. And, I'm convinced, probably successfully as well. Even in less than a week, it's clear that savvy conservatives are realizing the power of a successful midnight raid to kill Osama Bin Laden, and just how effectively it may eviscerate their 2012 election plans (what little hope they were clinging to, anyway). And so, now they're trying to shift the discussion back to the kind of extremes that they think make Democrats wilt - torture! Guantanamo! whatever it takes!

Even so, I don't think lefties, or the Democratic Party elite, are tied to an anti-terrorism policy that's exactly like what we've lived through under George Bush. What they, and we, are all tied to, even now, is the mess the Bush team left in their wake - the people who were tortured. The people we still hold at Gunatanamo. The things we did that we probably shouldn't have, and the things we continue to do as a result. These things can't be wished away... and to a considerable extent, they can't be undone. And we're not looking any better as a nation for just how little we wonder about the decency of shooting a man in the dead of night... and calling it justice. Even a man as monstrous as Osama Bin Laden.

May 02, 2011

Overnight, the months-long story of Republicans flailing in a weak sea of bad Presidential candidates became much clearer. Republicans may as well pick a decent sacrificial lamb (I'd go with Mitt Romney, myself) and give in to the inevitable: the near-certain reelection of President Obama.

If there's one thing you get for being the Democrat who got Osama Bin Laden, it's reelected.

It may seem crass to immediately take a major event like finding and killing Bin Laden and reduce it to simple political arithmetic, but what else is there to do? Hours, days, months will naturally be spent un packing and taking apart what Bin Laden's death means to international relations, future concerns about terrorism (God forbid there's another successful terrorist event in the US in the next 18 months), and the US role in the Middle East... but the tangible result of ending "The Hunt For Osama Bin Laden" is reallly much more directly and succinctly summed up in what it means fo the President. Success is rewarded. And this, clearly, defines "success."

Republicans have only themselves to blame for setting up this level of expectation, having taken the aftermath of 9/11 and used it, unapologetically, as a sledgehammer for political gain. "Democrats are soft on terrorism" has been their rallying cry ever since that day. If anyone had the nerve and instincts to find Osama Bin Laden and stop him cold, they said, it was some sort of gun toting Republican ideal. From the underpants bomber to the Fort Hood shooting to the Times Square car bomb that wasn't (and numerous examples in between), conservatives have spent the Obama Presidency searching out examples of "failing to fight the War on Terra" to buttress their case. And underpinning all of it was an argument that barely needed uttering: Osama Bin Laden is still out there - probably in Pakistan - and the Obama Administration would never find and stop him.

Overnight, the notion that only the right wing could handle fighting terrorism fell apart.

There's a case to be made - several, really - against reelecting President Obama. The problem, as I keep insisting, is that there's no one to make it. Republicans have been in poor shape to offer a compelling alternative despite the gains made in the 2010 elections. For years, conservatives and Republicans have ignored the disintegration of their own side, papered over their inherent problems, many of which stem directly from the disastrous, failed Presidency of George W. Bush. And failing to find Osama Bin Laden - the one job he he said people could expect him to finish - is just the most basic, lurid, example of his failures.

Republicans can't put together an argument for retaking the Presidency in 2012, because they haven't got one. They can't even seem to stop the sideshow that is Donald Trump (and how irrelevant does the idea of a Trump candidacy look this morning, anyway?). And now, combine the wildly unpopular choices of Paul Ryan's budget proposals with a lost argument as the only people who can fight terrorism... and seriously, they've got nothing. You can't fight something - even something as visibly flawed as the Obama Presidency - with nothing.

Nothing I say here should be construed as chest thumping, rah-rah support for "getting Osama." Sending in a covert ops team to hunt down and kill an "enemy of the US government" on foreign soil is an act so rife with questionable choices that it makes my blood, too, run cold. That said... as someone who lived through 9/11 in New York City, I know enough of what it was to go through those dark days to know that "we found Osama Bin Laden and had him killed" will satisfy something very basic and primitive in the American psyche. I'm not happy about it, I'm not proud of it... but I'm not blind to it, either. This is justice, and it was overdue. That's that. And being the President who got Osama Bin Laden on his watch? That's pretty much a guarantee of reelection. Game over.

February 09, 2011

I don't generally write much about Israel; it's a personal choice, driven by the feeling that discussions can get very contentious, and because I have a lot of friends and family very invested in the discussion. On all sides.

I also think that it's generally less productive to talk about the current unrest, in Egypt and elsewhere, in terms of Israel-specific conclusions. It's a very American thing to see the Middle East as primarily a story about Israel first, a bad habit that has, in its way, contributed the events that are now unfolding.

Still, we're in a moment where the situation in Egypt is both very fluid and very static; until Mubarak can be firmly transitioned out, it's hard to know how the protests will play out. This could all unravel tomorrow, or it could slowly devolve fom now until September's elections (or beyond).

In the meantime, it might be worth considering, at least for now, why these events, especially in Egypt, probably signal a tectonic shift for Israel, and for an American foreign policy driven in no small measure by the Israeli peace process.

A lot of people have talked about the fact that Egypians are not as supportive of the historic peace treaty with Israel as Hosni Mubarak has been officially. There's considerable concern about what could happen if Egypt held the kind of open elections - with a real chance for a different kind of oppositional government - in terms of maintaining a peaceful, settled arrangement with Israel. That alone may explain a great deal of the heavy dithering by the Obama Administration on trying to manage change in the region.

Whatever happens, though, it's likely that sometime this year we'll be looking at an Egyptian without Hosni Mubarak and less certainty about a major piece of the Israeli/Arab peace puzzle. And I think one interesting shift, one that might finally shake some of the recent complacency that has stalled movement between Israel and the Palestinians, will follow as a result. And that shift is that Israel's hard right will no longer be able to pretend, based on one 30 year old treaty, that they actually know how to coexist peacefully with the Arab world on their own terms.

Ever since Camp David, it's been kind of a given in discussions of Mideast peace that based on that treaty, Israel has known "how to do peace." This has given their foreign policy team a seriousness in public perception and in negotiations that is rarely questioned. When talks failed during the last year of the Clinton Presidency, or when the process became a mess under George W. Bush and Condoleeza Rice, in both cases it was generally suggested that the failures rested squarely with the palestinians. This despite an increasingly hardline Israeli leadership that was less interested in negotiated compromises and more interested in getting something for giving up very little. Settlements have only grown in the West Bank. Gaza has been increasingly isolated and cut off.

But we know Israel can "do peace"... because they made a deal with Egypt. Once. Thirty plus years ago.

It would, in some ways, be a welcome change to a certain kind of complacency to begin to suggest that Israel, as well as the Arab world, has some work to do to get a serious peace process going in the right direction. An Israeli population that cannot take even their western neighbor as a settled question is a population that might ask more questions of the hard right political parties... and give the more compromise minded Labor Party another chance to lead on the forign policy questions with more sensitivity to things that might need to be given up. Or maybe the Kadima/Likud hardliners will get to make the case that peace, itself, like a "two country solution" is a kind of Western fantasy that can never happen. At best, there will be a tense staredown and grudging acceptance.

American foreign policy would, in many ways, be a better, more sensible policy if we treated Israel less like a sacred mission and more like a nation, among many nations, that needs to be treated respectfully and fairly... and part of worldview that balances Israel's needs against neighboring countries, which are also important to US interests.

...Of course, that brings up a mucbh longer discussion that I care about passionately - figuring out how to define Israel less as a religious state and more as a nation, like other nations, that is defined by territory and political structures. But for the moment, I think it would help to just contemplate the Revolutionary Road that Egypt is on... and what it does when it reaches their border with Israel.